With every major Android release comes a new version of Google's not-so-famous Android Compatibility Definition Document. As reading goes, it is roughly between the excitement level of "doing your taxes" and "doing somebody else's taxes." Which is to say, I am well-caffeinated this morning. Anyway, the newest version of the CDD for Android 6.0 contains a change we've been on the lookout for since Lollipop was announced last year: mandatory full-disk encryption.

Since the announcement of encryption being enabled by default of the Nexus 6 and Nexus 9, Google has been on the encryption warpath (rightfully so!), and did in fact attempt to make this change in the initial Lollipop CDD back in January. Two months later, Google revised the CDD and decided it would no longer mandate encryption, merely "strongly recommend" it. But they did make it clear that the change was almost definitely coming, just not yet, saying at the time:

While this requirement is stated as SHOULD for this version of the Android platform, it is very strongly RECOMMENDED as we expect this to change to MUST in the future versions of Android.

"Future versions" of Android turn out to be 6.0 and onward. The new language in the 6.0 CDD is below.

For device implementations supporting full-disk encryption and with Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) crypto performance above 50MiB/sec, the full-disk encryption MUST be enabled by default at the time the user has completed the out-of-box setup experience.

As long as devices meet a given performance target for AES and support full-disk encryption out of the box, they will now be required to encrypt by the time device setup is complete. Devices that launched with a version of Android prior to 6.0 are exempt from this unless they already used encryption by default, which was pretty much "none" aside from the Nexus 6 and Nexus 9.

If a device implementation is already launched on an earlier Android version with full-disk encryption disabled by default, such a device cannot meet the requirement through a system software update and thus MAY be exempted.

Google is not requiring you to set a lockscreen out of the box, however, and instead is asking that if a manufacturer will allow a user to forego setting up a secure lockscreen during setup that the encryption be secured with a "default passcode" instead. The reasoning behind this is twofold. First, many manufacturers likely don't want to "force" their users to set up a secure lockscreen, because some people find them inconvenient. I think that's kind of dumb, but whatever.

But second, by mandating full-disk encryption out of the box even without a secure encryption key in place, that means when a user does decide to secure the lockscreen, there's no need to fully re-encrypt the disk (since the device has only set a default key) again... which would take forever.

There have been complaints that full-disk encryption reduces device performance, but there is little denying the security benefits. While I think it's a bit silly that we do allow people not to secure their lockscreens, in mandating full-disk encryption by default perhaps Google will encourage manufacturers to do exactly that.

I got an answer from a big person of the blog, cool.
He's saying I'm stupid but hey, you can't have it all

Cool

Lol. He didn't imply you were stupid.

At least not in my opinion. He just made you aware of a policy.

MJ

He probably just has low self-esteem...

youGameDeal

actually this comment made you look stupid not his reply to you.
he was just making you aware of the CDD policy

MJ

Wait... Google can enforce disk encryption via the CDD on OEMs but not updates for two years? WTF? Yeah, don't require them to do anything that would be a benefit to the consumer.

jlmcr87x

Agree with you.

Matt

The first is saying "hey, enable this feature by default that users can enable later anyway" and the second is saying "pay millions of dollars in development costs to keep devices up to date in a movie that won't make you any extra money."

Obviously it'd be great if OEMs were forced to keep devices up to date for two years, but it's pretty obvious why they don't and pretty obvious as well that they would have much more of a financial incentive to fight those updates than the encryption.

Me

Android OS updates are seriously over rated on OEM devices. For the most part there is no noticeable difference between the versions to the end user since most OEM devices have their own APIs for extra features already.
Nexus devices are completely reliant on the Android version for all features and all the UX, OEM devices are not.

Usually when an OEM devices gets 'updated' all I notice is more bugs.

MJ

Thanks for your recycled comment from 2012... The idea that Android OEMs have added on software value is what's really overrated.

What useful APIs for extra features does Sony, LG, HTC really provide on their phones? Samsung has done a couple of good things with their Note series software wise but has little benefit on regular phones. The few things that do land first on OEM phones is usually crap like fingerprint tech before the Nexus 5X and 6P for example which Google's APIs will replace most OEM ones.

What about security updates? Not important after 6 months?

A co-worker bought a Samsung S5 6 months ago and had some questions about it so took a look at it. What a piece of junk (software) and horrible user experience. It was weeks before could get the TouchWiz stink off of me...

Me

Just because you dont think there is anything of value it doesnt mean there isnt, personally i find Stock to be dull, boring featureless and boring. Never mind the fact that its got more bugs than just about any piece of software anyone ever dared release to the public.
Fingerprint APIs are OEM until now, not Google, superior fitness APIs, audio, camera (including lazer focus). If anything id say Samsungs fingerprint API is better than Googles (Googles is actually a copy for the most part anyway). In fact just about any feature an OEM has that stock doesnt is added value. Stock is low end, bargain basement.

Security updates? They dont need Google for that, some have fixes before Google does. My G3 is (was) 'still' on 5.0, yet isn't stagefright vulnerable, and wasnt well before any Nexus got patched.

So YOU don't like TW, big deal. I don't see what the fuss is about. Im not that keen on the launcher itself, I use Nova, but then again the Now launcher is even worse. I quite the rest, especially skinned and my Edge Plus is a LOT faster at everything than my unencrypted N6, a LOT.

MJ

"...superior fitness APIs, audio, camera (including lazer focus).":

I think you are interchanging APIs and programs...

" If anything id say Samsungs fingerprint API is better than Googles (Googles is actually a copy for the most part anyway)."

Yes, Google copied Samsung's code. LOL

"My G3 is (was) 'still' on 5.0, yet isn't stagefright vulnerable, and wasnt well before any Nexus got patched."

Right.. so clueless yet my G3 passes all the Stage fright check programs, all you have is a generic article from iBusinessinsider. By the way I also checked my G2, that also isnt vulnerable, and neither was my Edge Plus, right out of the box.

You realise fitness programs that interact with multiple devices use an API right? and yes Google DOES copy Samsung code, it copies everyones code, you may have noticed that Android is (mostly) open source.

You seem like the clueless one.. Typical Google sycophant.

MJ

I was expecting a "sorry I was wrong or misspoke" comment but I forgot this is the Internet...

Dude, My Nexus 5 is NOT vulnerable either, what's your point? I didn't say the G3 wasn't patched but it wasn't FIRST like you said... Google made the damn fix! You don't like my link? I can give you more links but know you would just dismiss those also... Where's your proof? Typical, I always provide prove of my argument but my counterpart just has his own good word.

Yes, AOSP is open source but does Samsung contribute their code to it? Is their fingerprint API open source? I can't find any info either way (didn't look that hard) on that but please provide a source.

I think we are done here now but thanks for playing.

Me

Google did NOT make the damn fix, some SMS apps fixed it before it was even reported as a thing! My G2 is running software from January, its not vulnerable, and I didn't say it was first, you made that up, I said it was earlier and didnt need Google or the latest version of Android, which was my point in the first place.

You provided no proof just a poor article from a Google hating website that doesnt even give any decent specifics, plus ther eare different version sof the flagships. What software is on the crappy US carrier versions I dont know or care, all my phones are unlocked international or European versions.

MJ

Some SMS apps makers fixed Stagefright on Android? LOL OK... I can't argue with you if you are going to just make nonsense statements. They fixed it so only their app is not vulnerable you moron and Stagefright is NOT just SMS/MMS!

Why is your G2 running software from January? They send out monthly patches now and the last one was late September so I don't think you are running software from "January". Do you even know the kernel or Android version date is different then the security patch level date (which most phones don't report)?

You didn't say the G3 wasn't fixed first before the Nexus phones? Oh, re-reading your comment (assuming you didn't edit it) I now see you made a even more ridiculous assertion (I gave you to much credit) that the G3 wasn't vulnerable to stagefright. #facepalm Source link please? Yeah right, that is not going to happen...

Thanks for the diversion son...

Me

Maybe you should check a few change logs for SMS apps in the store. Textra did it. Its important

I really wonder if your comprehension skills are up to scratch. I didnt say the G3 was 'first' I said it was made invulnerable before the Nexus phones. I could provide screenshots, but you would accuse me of making them up because it doesnt fit your worldview..

My G2 is running old software because it was off in a drawer and wasnt being used, jeez. If you must know it was running v20b when I checked, its now running v20u, which is the latest, and yes im well aware of the Kernel compilation date.

Me

I tell you what, you keep on worshipping Google, and I will live in the real world where they are just another not actually that great software developer with no clue about hardware or customer service.
Sycophants like you are enough to drive people to Windows Phone, which I would already do rather than have another piece of junk Nexus.

X-47B

I say the same for nexus devices, utter trash. Only few nerds use nexus just to act like hipsters.

MJ

Hipsters? LOL The troll is weak in you...

X-47B

Google may stop calling Android open source, and be done with it. This pseudo-open source stance is a big joke and a slap in the face.

"If a device implementation is already launched on an earlier Android version with full-disk encryption disabled by default, such a device cannot meet the requirement through a system software update and thus MAY be exempted."

Since I've never had a device encrypted by default, let me ask you guys a question about the user experience. My Nexus 5 is encrypted and when I reboot I am asked for a password before the OS actually boots to decrypt everything. No password, no start.

How do these default encrypted devices handle reboots? Does it only require passwords once you've set a screen pin?

Those are managed devices, I assume? That may be a feature of KNOX for Samsung, and it's possible the device admin features for Android already have boot PIN as a flag that can be enabled in the console.

Mgamerz

May be KNOX now, but I know before KNOX was a thing things like the Droid 4 had it. Our users hated it. They still do but now we encrypt laptops too heh.

Ah, I've only ever owned Nexus devices, so I didn't realize it wasn't standard. When you say "an option" do you mean that this is something you can disable in Android on a Nexus or just that it is a thing that it does once encrypted?

No it isn't. It's part of the encryption feature on all 3.0+ devices, and it uses whatever your device's screen lock is, so it doesn't have to necessarily be a PIN.

Tassadar

When devices are encrypted by default, they have password "default_password". They work exactly the same as you are used to on your Nexus 5, except if you don't change the password from the default one, it will enter it automatically during boot - that way you don't see the "enter password" screen during boot unless you changed the lockscreen to pin/gesture/password (encryption and lockscreen are tied together).

Yeah, the encryption by default is useless unless you use pin/gesture/password for the lockscreen. The difference is that when you do use it, you don't have to go through the lengthy encryption - it is already encrypted, you just changed the keys to yours, which is fast.

(Note: the data are actually encrypted with random key that does not change with your password. That random key is then encrypted with your password, so when you change it, you only have to re-encrypt the random key and not all of the data).

DT

Thanks, I needed the addendum. I think it's time ot find another Android site because these guys are terrible at explaining the technical side of things.

Stoffers

AndroidPolice is terrible at explaining the technical side of things? That's new.

DT

No, it's really not. They often leave out critical information. Doing a lot of something != doing it well.

Stoffers

So they're not terrible at explaining the technical side of things. Now I'm confused, first they are, now they aren't.
Seems like someone is terrible at their command of the English language.

DT

What? I never, ever said they weren't terrible at it.

DT

OOOOHHH, I see. You have a terrible command of reading comprehension. "No it's really not" refers to it being "new".

abqnm

Does it only require passwords once you've set a screen pin?

That's pretty much how the new CDD reads.

It seems like it's meant entirely to eliminate the sometimes hours and hours it can take to set encryption up after you have data on the device and make it easy for anyone that uses a secure lockscreen to benefit from encryption. Basically easy encryption for end users with no change to user experience.

When a secure lockscreen hasn't been set, a default passphrase is used for the encryption. Since there is no secure lockscreen, having an insecure default encryption key poses no additional security risk. This would allow the OS to provide the default decryption passphrase at boot, making it invisible to the end user.

However, if the user who didn't set up a secure lockscreen later wanted to secure the device, when they set the secure lockscreen, the OS would then be able to write the new encryption key, securing the device, without the user having to then endure the long and often troublesome process of encrypting a device with existing data.

DT

Wait, wait... how is that even remotely true? If it's not actually using the key to encrypt the data then what use is it? And if it is, you have to re-encrypt all that data again.

Derek

Sorry David, but if you want mandatory lockscreen implementations, you should be using iOS. Android allows for OPTIONS. Sure, it's a risk, but having a smartphone in the first place places your data at risk and is having a PIN of 0000 anymore secure? No data is 100% safe.

No door lock is 100% safe. Not installing door locks on your house is, dare I say, pretty dumb. Arguing for weaker security on the basis of "choice" even when we now have things like fingerprint scanners is just flat-out denial.

Derek

Most apps that have any sort of sensitive data have their own options for PIN's fingerprints, etc. Not everyone uses a phone with sensitive data exposed in the general UI. To argue otherwise is condescending saying, "use your phone like I want you to use your phone".

catalysto

Just the browser app alone can provide a wealth of information for any intruder. No, not all apps with sensitive data have their own pins. Also, why have pins on all your different apps when you can just have one master on the lock screen?

Derek

Assuming someone actually enters sensitive data into the browser. Again, not everyone uses their phones the same way. I know plenty of people that don't use browsers on phones mainly because the experience sucks in comparison.

You don't see those as potential attack vectors? A little bit of social engineering goes a long way.

Derek

If they think they can social engineer around my grandma baking a cake & asking for the recipe, good luck with that. The white pages has the same information. Should I be worried even without a cell phone?

CoreRooted

Honestly? Yes. The whole reason the phone companies started allowing for privately listed numbers years ago was due to increasing calls for security. Any potential attack vector is still an attack vector. Why do you think that banks and credit card companies (and other companies in general) started asking for more identifiable information when you contact them? It's easy to spoof a number and talk someone into giving up information that can be used against you.

Derek

Really? What % of the population actually has a privately listed number, given that it's not a free service? The data you speak of is already available in multiple places. Social engineer away.
I'll give you this though, if Android hacker extraordinaire decides to steal my phone, I'm screwed without a lockscreen & encryption. I'm willing to take the chance though that the person grabbing my phone doesn't give a crap about my beer bong pics & is just going to wipe it so they can make some quick $$$ on it.

PartySmasher

Let's have an experiment, I bet that using just the data you've listed on your disqus account would be enough to find your social networking site of choice which opens up tons of ways to get the info needed to access something like your email. Before long I've found your electronic bank statement and reset your bank's password and could then transfer you data to another account. Like, I'm not trying to be a shit to you man but social engineering is how "real hacking" is carried out.

Derek

Thank you for making my point for me! I understand social networking is the most lucrative form of hacking, but to extrapolate someone not using a lockscreen on a smartphone into a social networking attack is fantasy when, as you stated, no physical presence is even necessary to accomplish something like that via the web. It would be far easier to get away with the crime by someone anonymously stealing my data from a site like Disqus along with thousands of other accounts. The guy ripping off my phone isn't going to be worried about my data when he knows I can wipe the device remotely or activate other security measures on the phone in a matter of minutes.

PartySmasher

I mean, yes and no, if I wanted to steal someone's data from a found phone, I'd open up there email and find anything of value before the phone was wiped. Yes it's completely doable without a phone but if you're a lazy hacker though, it's a small goldmine... All I'm gonna say is I found an S3 years ago and pulled TONS of "expensive" data from not only the phones owner but many his/her contacts since they had the contacts phone number, address, email, even Facebook links listed.

Derek

And the chances someone capable of doing that finds my phone before I've wiped? The chances of that happening where I live are slim at best. Knock on wood, but I can remember exactly 1 instance since 1996 where I left/forgot my phone in a public environment where it could have been stolen. Luckily, I went back to the bar & it was exactly where I had left it. Now someone that forgets a phone all the time, I'd probably suggest a locked phone. But saying lockscreens should be mandatory across Android is ridiculous. It depends on that specific persons use case & that's why it's optional & not mandatory.

PartySmasher

Oh I completely agree on that end, shit I don't use one knowing the risk. People such as me and yourself are part of the rare breed that like to live dangerously.

CoreRooted

To be honest, I have no idea how many people use the private phone number service (I have for the past 2 decades). While the data is available already, it isn't always easy to make put the relationships together.

For instance, I can use the white pages and find all the John Smiths and hope that I could social engineer just one of them to get some sort of personal details to be able to steal their identities. Now, let's say that I have your phone. I can call a family member pretending that I know you and I need some personal info (I forgot your birthday or your home address or your employer). From there, it's rather easy to extrapolate a password given the answers I'm given. Again, it's all about the attack vectors. Can this be done without an unencrypted device in my hands? Sure. But having it makes it MUCH easier on me as a hacker.

Stoffers

The white pages have the ability to make calls from your phone? You realize a huge scam is someone pretending to be an elders grandchild saying they're stuck somewhere or in legal trouble and need money wired immediately. How much easier is that when you know the names of direct relatives, and know the grand kids name, and are calling from their number.
Your shortsightedness is amazing. It's also protecting your family.
Also, forcing a lock screen GREATLY reduces the value of stolen phones and reduces the odds of phones being stolen at all, if all phones are locked, no phones are unlocked and easy to flip.

Derek

Have you ever done a Google search on yourself? You can get your mom's name, dad's name, etc. all by a simple Google search. Regardless of that, assuming the grandparents have caller ID to even recognize the number coming in is a huge leap. But hey, why let that stand in the way of your imaginary narrative? Also, ever heard of number spoofing? Ridiculously easy to do. Far easier than ripping off someone's hardware which oh BTW, can be used to directly track your location. And your point about having a phone locked makes it less likely to be flipped is just plain wrong. All someone has to do to wipe out the protection is factory reset the phone through recovery. Easy enough to flip right there. Carriers IMEI lists for stolen phones is the best way to avoid stolen devices.

PartySmasher

Exactly

Me

Well I try to avoid it if at all possible because mobile browsers all suck. If i can do something in an app i will.

MJ

I have a PC and Internet connection at work and home so only browse on my small screen, slow connection phone when need to lookup something quick when on the go.

DT

Thus proving the point of the person you're responding to.

catalysto

Point stands that not all apps with sensitive info use pins.

Stoffers

Most people's Chrome is logged into their Google account.

pfmiller

Not installing door locks on your house is dumb. Not installing door looks on your cabinet? Maybe not so much. Different devices have different use cases.

Matt

If the cabinet houses all your emails and all your bank/credit card/other important website logins, I'd say it would be dumb not to lock that cabinet as well.

Even if somebody doesn't sync their bank/credit card logins to Chrome or Firefox that's running on their phone, access to the phone number and the email inbox is still a pretty easy route to getting that or other sensitive info.

Stoffers

Not even that, Chrome stores a LOT of my credentials for a LOT of sensitive sites.

PartySmasher

Mmk, tell me why in the fuck I need a lock screen for my tablet that is used only for emulators, my 3 phones used as media devices, etc. Even on my phone I use every day, I have individual apps locked down but not the entire phone because of I quickly want to change music I'm listening to or look at my news feed.

PartySmasher

Mang you're so smart tell us all how to use our Android devices are great master. Douche.

Sometimes I want to look at the artist, swipe a little to see the next song, etc. Does that seem exotic and strange to you?

OligarchyAmbulance

No, I was just replying to you saying "if I want to check a song or adjust the volume" which is 100% doable on the lockscreen of a device.

PartySmasher

Hey buddy, tell me how you can search through Spotify, Play Music, Z Player, wherever from the lock screen and then you're point will be valid.

AQ

Xposed module app settings to allow an app to launch over the lock screen + a lock screen widget or key press (xposed additions pro) to actually launch the app.
I've had double press home on my S4 launch the camera long before the S6 came out.

YaKillaCJ

Same here, lockscreen passwords are just annoying. I do lock privacy & sensitive Apps like Messenger, Gallery, Play Store, Email, Social Media, etc. This way the simple things like making a call, playing music, watching Netflix, controlling my chromecast, YouTube, surfing the web, games are not a nuisance. I can also lend people my phone to use without worrying about unlocking it and once unlocked, then going through my privacy or sensitive settings. So yes, many of us don't wanna lock our phone. Even though I have an Android Wear and can use smart unlock, that unlocks everything.

What Google should do is build in the option to lock picked apps and/or its data.

DT

No, that's really dumb and unsafe. Guest mode is for that.

YaKillaCJ

U aren't getting the point. I don't wanna do any extra steps to start using my phone. Nor do I wanna have to do extra steps to feel ok about others using it. It's far from dumb or unsafe because the setup I have right now means that no1 can get into anything sensitive without my say so. I can leave my phone on the desk and walk away. I can just be like here use it or grab it from over there.

Let me ask U this: is there a lock on your house phone? Do U lock your Radio or Surround Sound? Do U lock your Smart TV so no1 can watch Netflix?

DT

I don't have a house phone or a radio, and my surround sound isn't also controlled by the thing that controls my sensitive information. Let me ask "U" this: are "U" a fourteen-year-old girl?

YaKillaCJ

Clearly by the pic I am not, so stay on topic. Don't try to deflect the debate based on grammar. If U wanna go there, the importance of communication and is standards are so people can give information and receive information to each other on common footing. So as long as we understand each other, my shortening of "you" to "U" is irrelevant.

I'm sure your audio system can tune into the radio. Not all devices in use have sensitive info on them like repurposed last year devices. Also let me be clear Again non of my sensitive data is accessible even tho I do not have a lockscreen password. Our did U miss the part about how I lock all sensitive info. This includes all settings, root apps, xposed, messages & communication apps like email, Skype, social media, play store. TWRP passworded, adb disabled, file browsing disabled, android device manager (for remote wipe) and the smartapp lock in device administration allowing me to lock down the entire device via remote text message (including the none sensitive access/data too)

DT

I didn't miss that part, but I'll continue to mock you for missing that that doesn't matter.

Profile pics are useless, I never even look at tgem. And YES, people will think less of you for writing like a moron.

YaKillaCJ

Lmfao I grew up a long time ago. I don't care about what people think about me. What matters is that I have confidence in myself and know I live my life right and enjoy it. I am who I am and proud of myself, people can think what they want. Just to be clear and make a point. My Instagram uses the same name (YaKillaCJ) and my page publicly viewable. I am far from dumb. I keep myself up and no1 who interact with me in life makes such claims. So clearly I don't care if ya mock me, I am just giving ya a different view and knowledge.

Speaking of which, I notice ya had nothing to say about my decision being stupid to not use a lock screen. Nice that U understand I can have a secure device without a lockscreen password. That's the beauty of Android. Having our devices exactly how we want them.

DT

No, no you can't. I didn't say anything about because I have said it four times now and you're too think to get it.

YaKillaCJ

All U said is that it's dumb to have my sensitive data insecure. I went on to explain in detail how my data is very secure and I have taken more steps for security than just a lock screen. So yea, explain to me where my security breach is? The 1 that using a lock screen will fix. Because if U can't do that, then U clearly lack the knowledge on the topic. Maybe ya thought I was the average user or something. I will tell ya this, It's more likely that I can steal your info than you can mine.

youGameDeal

looks like google is using better storage or improved the read write speed on nexus 5X and 6p. taken from ars technica

I was just saying that the new Nexus phones don't have faster storage nor faster storage encryption than the old Nexus 6. But the new Galaxy phones beginning with s6 of course do have faster storage, they are using Samsungs new ufs2 technology.

In my opinion there is no huge performance difference between encrypted and regular phones. At least on modern phones. So I guess it's OK to force oem's to enable encryption on new phones.

Me

My point is that the scores for the new Nexus are probably higher now to, scores on Androbench are inconsistent and highly dependant on version of android, the firmware version, and the version of the app.

DT

How could the Edge Plus kill the Note 5? They're practically the same device?

Me

Because the figures above are well out of date...

youGameDeal

how can that figure be out of date?? it includes nexus 6p and 5X which many have only gotten to get hold of in 3-4 days

Me

Tested with pre-release software.

Mgamerz

Wow! That UI is absolutely terrible.

X-47B

Way to complain about the most irrelevant point. Most people don't care about UI as long as it get the job done.
It's a benchmaring app FFS not some fashion magazine for Nexus zombies.

Me

Its one Google developed..

Mgamerz

I know. It's from pre-honeycomb. Looks terrible today. Looked terrible back then too.

Fatal1ty_93_RUS

Ohai Gingerbread UI

Travis Harrell

looks like my non-encrypted Nexus 6 (first gen) is the ticket.

X-47B

So they are using sub-standard hardware. What else do you expect from nexus?

Victor Garcia

How can one find out how fast your device's crypto performance is?

EDIT: I guess Androbench is the way to go.

someone755

Don't mind me, just downloading Androbench.

Cool

This is great, in my opinion. Added security, etc.

But also because most new phones coming out should be using ARMv8 SoCs which have accelerated AES operations for crypto. The performance should be extremely good.

It depends on a lot of factors. A badly written service running in the background can make Android stutter and freeze up.

Stoffers

In fairness, my N5 still runs quite smooth. It's not always 100% lag free, but I don't notice stutters very often at all, and that's the kind of thing I tend to notice when I use other people's devices.

Me

I dont find the N5 all that great for smoothness. The smoothest device ive used is the S6 edge plus (with a custom kernel). Much smoother and faster than the N5 or 6.

Paolo T.

Yes, but it is still generally slowER than non encrypted read write. And its an absolute nightmare for microSD users.

Bobby Phoenix

No lockscreen for me. I'm the only one using my phone. Why make it harder for me to get into my own phone when it's only me at home sitting on a couch?

Me

I agree to a point, but a fingerprint sensor really helps, on my Edge Plus its become completely non-intrusive now.

UtopiaNH

Or they could just use smart lock. Fingerprint sensor is massively overrated.

Me

Smart lock isnt much good if both devices are stolen together...

derk p

i hope no one takes my pebble if im passed out somewhere lol

Stoffers

What's the range on your pebble? 30 feet? They don't need to steal the watch to get into the device.

Stoffers

I think the convenience of the sensor will be great. Can't wait for my 6P. I was never really for them but the implementation on the front made them awkward. From what I've read by the time I've got the phone in front of my face, it will be unlocked.

CoreRooted

All it takes is one instance of losing your device to change that stance. That's like people saying "I never lose my keys" and then have to spend a couple hundred dollars re-keying all their locks.

Matt

Except my keys unlock my house, where I have valuables. I think many people don't have any sensitive information on their phones.

CoreRooted

I've heard people use this as an argument against encryption many times. The issue is that the smallest piece of data can potentially be reversed engineered to allow for a larger breach.

For instance, let's say that I ONLY have contacts on my phone and my name is John Smith. I have my wife's contact info in my phone (which many people keep, right?) listed as Jane Smith. I lose my phone and someone gets it. They call my wife saying that they found my phone and would like to return it. She proceeds (innocently enough) to give them your home or work address. Now, you're opened up to home theft or possibly worse. Or, even worse, let's say that you have all your family (children, siblings, parents, etc) setup as contacts. Because of lax security, they are all at risk.

ANY piece of data can potentially be an attack vector. Encryption would have solved these scenarios by not allowing an attacker to even get to your contacts.

There is no excuse for not encrypting personal data, no matter how insignificant it may seem.

Mgamerz

Your contacts aren't considered sensitive information? What if some dick calls your SO and says you're cheating?

PartySmasher

As someone who used to dabble in "shadier" internet behavior, I can garuntee you that no one who randomly steals your phone gives a fuck about something like that. They'll grab whatever data that could link to credit card/banking information or other data linked with general identity theft and then flip the phone.

Except I have never misplaced a cell in my entire life, ever since I first got one in 2000. Broken sure, but never misplaced. My phone is always inches away from my body.

And if someone does actually ever get a hold of my phone, I hope they have fun with my photos of furniture I'm selling and phone numbers of immediate family/friends (who all list in the phone book).

I am far more concerned about losing my phone due to the price of replacing it, I could care less about what is stored on it.

CoreRooted

That's the point I make in my previous comment(s). Your family and friends can be potential attack vectors. All it takes is a bit of successful social engineering and someone *could* easily take quite a lot from you and it may not be money. Perhaps identity theft or worse crimes. I'm not pulling these things from thin air. There are thousands of police reports detailing how stolen data led to more nefarious crimes all over the world. In many instances, it was a stolen cell phone with either no password or a weak password.

Encrypting a device is a simple and effective way of protecting even the most benign data. I honestly don't understand why some people are so against it.

1213 1213

Fingerprint scanners are becoming more convenient and quicker, so even if you personally don't care its not too bad for you. For other people with a devil-may-care attitude I'd imagine that it would still be a net benefit.

rrjp

All it takes is many instances of almost wrecking my car because SmartLock doesn't work at all and the damn thing is locked every time I get to the end of an album...

CoreRooted

Seriously? Music above safety? What about voice commands? "Ok Google, play [album name]".

rrjp

Do voice commands work while the phone is locked? I did a quick Google search and didn't see anyone saying that it did work while locked and a whole lot of people trying to figure out how to make it work while locked. I haven't tried voice commands because it seemed like you had to agree to a million privacy violations just to turn it on and I didn't feel like reading the long agreement at the time. I also don't want it listening to every second of my life and sending that audio to a server somewhere... Nice Dalek BTW,,,

CoreRooted

You can enable voice commands to work while locked by setting them up in gNow. Privacy wise, meh, we already give tons of info to Google. Voice is the least of my concerns. Once you setup voice commands (GNow -> Settings -> Voice -> "Ok Google" detection), it's easy to play pretty much anything by voice command.

Most devices now seem to have a "remain unlocked while near device XXX" feature. So, if you pair with a car stereo system or hands-free system, the phone won't lock as long as the phone is within Bluetooth range of it (and the car is on). You only generally want to do this with devices that someone can't simply pocket along with your phone...

Retsu Unohana ®

Set smart lock on and just keep the device unlocked when you're inside the house area. (Designated by a circle surrounding the house on a map) or set multiple places, mothers house, gf whatever. I started using this with locations not out in public and set the lock to kick in after 10 minutes of not being used in other locations.

I had the same stance at you but decided to set up a pin lock just to make sure. A side effect of this is only using the phone when needed and not random glancing 24/7 when out and about or shopping in stores.Plus if you use shop apps, and social accounts are kept private in a chance someone does decide to take the phone. You have to just get use to using it locked and the annoying part wears off.

Bobby Phoenix

Thanks. I gave it a try. It works better than I thought. No need to enter pin, pattern, etc. I was using the swipe already, but didn't want the extra step of another thing to do of pin, etc, but at home I don't. Nice. Thanks for the tip!

Stoffers

The fingerprint readers on the new Nexus devices should make this a non issue.

Chileball

Exactly, that's why I use an Xposed Module to change lockscreens based on which WiFi I'm connected.

CoreRooted

Why this is not in stock smart lock boggles my mind... *sigh*

DT

Since it's been explained many, many times, it boggles my mind that this still boggles people's minds.

CoreRooted

I know... I know... It's just something so brain-dead simple and it was highly requested for years. Sorry... just complaining to complain. lol

DT

... what? No. you're still seeming to imply that it would be a good idea and you're being ignored.

There really isn't a way to guarantee a wifi hotspot is actually the one you said is the secure wifi hotspot, because that was never built into the specification. Therefore, I just set up a wifi hotspot with your hotspot's name and credentials, and get close to your device such that my hotspot is stronger than your hotspot. Bingo, I have stolen all your data.

To that end, I agree that SSID would be a terrible way to have trusted WiFi, but couldn't they identify by MAC address? Most people's home networks only have one router, so a single MAC (or just a handful) being white listed would seem secure enough and accurate enough to use.

"Encryption protects from people being able to steal data from the data storage directly."

One of the big advantages of encryption in that case is when you need to return the phone for warranty service/exchange. If it needs service because it you can't turn it on, it's too late to wipe the data. If it is already encrypted, the data is protected. I have seen a number of cases of people buying refurbished drives or devices that still have someone's data on them. I have received drives like that myself.

TipTop

Eh not too psyched about this. I like making my own choices and I don't keep anything sensitive on my phone.

Stoffers

Forced encryption and a forced lock screen greatly reduces the value of a stolen phone. That alone makes this worth it.

TipTop

Never happened to me. Useless.

Stoffers

I feel the same way about cancer research and life insurance.

TipTop

Those can happen, but I never ever lost phone since having Nokia 5110 in 90s. All this does is to make it harder to recover files.

TJ

Finally! I was upset the N7 marshmallow image didn't have encryption on by default.

akzidenz

its back to being lagdroid it seems

Paul Monroe, Jr.

My question is how much of a actual hit does performance take with full disk encryption, and also does the advancements in processors speeds and ram negate that??

CoreRooted

On older devices, there is a bit of a hit. I know that a lot of people say the N5 and N6 were sluggish with encryption enabled. In general, the system in general may feel a bit slower and apps can take a little bit longer to open and switch. On newer devices, there is much less of a hit. The new SoCs that are coming out will reduce the performance hit even more (most likely to the point where there will be no performance degradation at all).

On my N6, I've had encryption enabled from day one, so I never really noticed a system slow down.

blackice85

I was initially worried about sluggishness too, but my N6 has always been encrypted and it's very snappy. I think even faster with Marshmallow now, like I can't imagine how much faster an un-encrypted device would be. I'm sure there's a difference in benchmarks, but I doubt it's something I would notice.

TedPhillips

meanwhile, tried to run FDE on f2fs on cm12.1 and had a bad time. (boot hangs, corruption, gapps death)

put some hours into it, no avail. back to ext4 for now. :-

was 'meh' on f2fs until i tried it. but i can't live without crypto.

anyone successfully doing that? (i imagine most f2fs conversions are all about 'PERFORMANCE!!!!11!!!' so fde crypto would be an anathema) what device?

TedPhillips

seems like the CDD should mandate against the unencrypted storage speeds, because otherwise you could loophole the thing with a really crappy crypto implementation.

'
i've got ufs2 500mb/s speeds but i'm implemented the storage crypto pipeline acoustically and it only get's 2mb/s, guess i don't have to fde by default.
'

could leave the door open with an opt-in switch/update that gives back performant fde.

Tom Thomas

Why all the obsession with disk encryption? Personally, I don't want my stuff encrypted because it's more important I be able to recover photos from my wedding, than some shadowy 3 letter agency gets to look at them. Let me guess what these companies suggest as a solution? Use their cloud backup engines right!? Kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it?

Disk encryption has been around for decades, and there's a reason it's never been on by default: in 99.9999% of cases it causes more problems than it solves.

Think of it like putting an indestructible combination lock on your wallet. If you forget the combination, the contents of your wallet are lost forever. Therefore, you're encouraged to store a duplicate copy of all your documentation at your wallet manufacturers warehouse. All this so nobody can look at the pictures of your kids if you lose it.